Limiting you choices? I say chunk it!

[Low Drag]

I’ve read a number of times we should limit the number of techniques or tactics we learn because the more choices we have, the longer it will take us to make a decision and act, thereby moving though our OODA cycle slower than our adversary. All I can say is, “Oh really?” See my thoughts on context.

Allow me to bring in some expertise from another discipline to illustrate, specifically from Object Oriented Design (OOD) – computer programming and process analysis methodology. Have you ever seen one of those very large, very complex system diagrams with all the different shapes? You could give me one that takes up an entire wall and I could distill it down to no more than 9, guaranteed. I’d then “nest” all those other different little shapes into those (less than 9) large shapes on the main page and no more than 9 shapes “under” each of those first 9. It’s like trying to eat one of those huge Mr. Field’s cookies in one big mouthful or one little nibble at a time. As humans we do this all the time for better or worse. We all want to categorize or lump people and things together into groups and categories.

Back to OOD. The basic idea here is like a database, store it once and use it over and over again to maximize your resources. Or with OOD create a process template; give it different inputs to fit the situation, your actions may be different but you get to a desired outcome.

So what’s this mean to the martial student? It’s rather straight forward, when you first see a new technique or review an old one -- put it in context. (There’s that word again) Ask yourself what problem is this technique attempting to solve? Then put it in a “bucket”, a “chunk”, or “drawer” in your “tactical toolbox”. Categorize it!

Is it offensive or defensive? Is it an “oh ****!” response or is it for when I’m in a solid condition yellow and not taken by surprise? Think about it, actually think about it. Here are a couple examples, back to context again. You’re in a stop and rob at the register and a BG comes in and puts a gun to your face before you can say ”Boo!”. Now same thing except you’re back with the chips and you notice a less than stellar example of a citizen come into the store “hiding under his ball cap”. Do you need to be able to draw your handgun fast while using your non shooting hand to deflect the BGs gun or draw slow and easy? Should you even use deadly force? Obviously both skills are important, although the latter shouldn’t require the practice of the former. OK now sit down, take a breath….. In which situation would you use your sights? Context! Would having all these choices slow you down?

Now for some brass tacks. Would anyone want to hang me if I said a good tactical response for most civilian situations is to return accurate fire as quickly as you can while moving to a position of tactical advantage? Then continue the fight from cover or position of tactical superiority should the situation dictate? Note I am assuming civilian, that you are the GG and must wait for the attack or at least until it’s imminent. Would anyone absolutely lose it if I said I would do just that, weather my fight happened to be at 2 feet, 10 feet, 20 feet, 20 yards or 200 yards? If my fight was at 2 feet would I use a technique different than I would at 20? You bet! Would I still be trying to return accurate fire as quickly as you can while moving to tactical advantage? Absolutely! So now my huge diagram for self defense is broken down to 3 shapes:

1. Return accurate fire.
2. While firing, move to a position of tactical advantage (hint: cover is a GREAT tactical advantage, safer too).
3. Continue the fight from a position of advantage.

Now I need to know how close my fight is to select the technique that works best. In reality I will choose from 2 or 3 max techniques. At 2 feet I may need to use my hands/feet/knees/elbows to fight my way to my gun. At 6 feet I may close with the BG, sting him, and then go to guns while moving to cover. At 200 yards I may opt to go straight for cover. The MMA guys would say I need to be aware of distance, speed and timing. Funny how good principles cut across sub-disciplines.

[Brownie]

More high speed thoughts from Low Drag

Good stuff sir

[Low Drag]

I just re-read this today and think I'll take another pass back at this. See if I can bring it more directly to SD........:o

[sweatnbullets]

I am liking it!

Due to the amount of techniqes and tactics I practice and work with, some people have insinuated that I do not keep it simple or that I mess with Hicks law.

I disagree and I believe the reason that I disagree is that I "chunk it."

For instance, I use numerous options of drawing on the move. To me it is simply "drawing on move." One concept with numerous options.

I believe that my body will pick the option. And that option will have been covered and ingrained. But it is simply "drawing on the move."

Am I on the right track here, lowdrag?

[Low Drag]

I am liking it!

Due to the amount of techniqes and tactics I practice and work with, some people have insinuated that I do not keep it simple or that I mess with Hicks law.

I disagree and I believe the reason that I disagree is that I "chunk it."

For instance, I use numerous options of drawing on the move. To me it is simply "drawing on move." One concept with numerous options.

I believe that my body will pick the option. And that option will have been covered and ingrained. But it is simply "drawing on the move."

Am I on the right track here, lowdrag?

I'm certainly no expert but I think the folks that claim too many techniques is a bad idea just can't step back and see the big or mid sized picture. They get mired in the details of performing a technique "correctly" rather than thinking of where it fits and makes sense to employ.

[kilogulf59]

I'm certainly no expert but I think the folks that claim too many techniques is a bad idea just can't step back and see the big or mid sized picture. They get mired in the details of performing a technique "correctly" rather than thinking of where it fits and makes sense to employ.


To impart another perspective; I do not necessarily see it as a "big picture" issue. I believe Low Drag touched upon the problem in his last sentence.

To me, it is more a question of training time and money to instill proficiency. If one has a limited amount of assets, or plain old interest for that matter, allocated for training is it not better to know several techniques/tactics well than to have only familiarity with many.

Can anyone dispute this philosophy?

The entire basis for training and textbook practice, in any field of endeavor, is not only to grasp the ability to execute said procedure but to instill it into ones subconscious. Thus enabling one to bypass the conscious thought process and execute the correct course of action with extreme speed and flawlessly.

So, in essence, no, do not limit your choices, however become adept in what you are currently learning before moving to the next topic. In addition, continue to practice all the techniques you intend to someday use.

That’s my $.02 worth, time for another cup of “Joe” ;) .

[Low Drag]

To impart another perspective; I do not necessarily see it as a "big picture" issue. I believe Low Drag touched upon the problem in his last sentence.

To me, it is more a question of training time and money to instill proficiency. If one has a limited amount of assets, or plain old interest for that matter, allocated for training is it not better to know several techniques/tactics well than to have only familiarity with many.

Can anyone dispute this philosophy?

The entire basis for training and textbook practice, in any field of endeavor, is not only to grasp the ability to execute said procedure but to instill it into ones subconscious. Thus enabling one to bypass the conscious thought process and execute the correct course of action with extreme speed and flawlessly.

So, in essence, no, do not limit your choices, however become adept in what you are currently learning before moving to the next topic. In addition, continue to practice all the techniques you intend to someday use.

That’s my $.02 worth, time for another cup of “Joe” ;) .
I think I'm with you here. To restate......

It's better to know a handful of flexable techniques based upon solid principles that I have down cold than to have 2 dozen high speed techniques that I can to half assed.... I'll stick with the low drag/simple techniques myself. ;)

I don't think knowing a few handfuls of techniques is a bad thing, it's simply a matter of thinking of their application. If I were to just learn techniqe after techninqe without burning a calorie or two evalauating where they fit in my tool box (catagoriziing/chunking it) then I most likely will have a problem making a decission when the time comes.

We're getting close to some other issues too. For instance as kilogulf59 said, there's only so many hours in the day/week to train. Sooooo, shall we run the numbers/play the odds on the "likely" ccw encounters and spend 80% of our training efforts there? Then of course that begs the question where to we get the apolitical data on likely civilian encounters? Then once all that is IDed how to we go about maximizing our training time/ammo/dollars to be the most effective we can?

[David Williams]

Low Drag -
You're definitely on the right track. You're staring right into the face of the 80/20 rule (which is the law of the land in the corporate world), which theorizes that in any endeavor 80% of the goal can be acheived through 20% of the effort, and that 20% of the goal will require the remaining 80% of the effort.

We use this every day in business planning. In every decision we are programmed to determine priorities and order of magnitude. If a certain goal will require 80% of the project effort but only produce 20% of the desired outcome, then you may not want to attack those points right off, but rather save them for further down the road. Worst case scenario, it is much better to near the end of your project 80% complete than only 20%.

Same goes for SD training - why should we allocate valuable training resources (time/money) to train for improbable scenarios, especially SPECIFIC scenarios? Would our effort not be better spent learning/practicing a few highly versatile skills that increase our abilities to respond across a wider range of possible situations and save the specialized training for later?

Bloody lot of good being smokin' fast on a tactical reload does you if you never get to respond to the threat in the first place.

I like it - keep it coming! ;)

[kilogulf59]

To impart another perspective; I do not necessarily see it as a "big picture" issue. I believe Low Drag touched upon the problem in his last sentence.

To me, it is more a question of training time and money to instill proficiency. If one has a limited amount of assets, or plain old interest for that matter, allocated for training is it not better to know several techniques/tactics well than to have only familiarity with many.

Can anyone dispute this philosophy?

The entire basis for training and textbook practice, in any field of endeavor, is not only to grasp the ability to execute said procedure but to instill it into ones subconscious. Thus enabling one to bypass the conscious thought process and execute the correct course of action with extreme speed and flawlessly.

So, in essence, no, do not limit your choices, however become adept in what you are currently learning before moving to the next topic. In addition, continue to practice all the techniques you intend to someday use.

That’s my $.02 worth, time for another cup of “Joe” ;) .


I think I'm with you here. To restate......

It's better to know a handful of flexable techniques based upon solid principles that I have down cold than to have 2 dozen high speed techniques that I can to half assed.... I'll stick with the low drag/simple techniques myself. ;)

I don't think knowing a few handfuls of techniques is a bad thing, it's simply a matter of thinking of their application. If I were to just learn techniqe after techninqe without burning a calorie or two evalauating where they fit in my tool box (catagoriziing/chunking it) then I most likely will have a problem making a decission when the time comes.

We're getting close to some other issues too. For instance as kilogulf59 said, there's only so many hours in the day/week to train. Sooooo, shall we run the numbers/play the odds on the "likely" ccw encounters and spend 80% of our training efforts there? Then of course that begs the question where to we get the apolitical data on likely civilian encounters? Then once all that is IDed how to we go about maximizing our training time/ammo/dollars to be the most effective we can?

BINGO LD!

I wanted to choose my words well as usually I either am misunderstood or ignored. This time I guess I got it right because we agree 100%.

This is why I like "The Fable of the Fox and the Cat" by Aesop so well. An old instructor of mine and still best friend, a very well-read man, related this to me and I was really impressed. Imagine that; simple logic...I'm not use to that in this day and age.

[Low Drag]

DW and KG59 it seems we are on the same page.

David, I like the ref to the 80/20 rule. It only makes sense to bring principles from other disciplines there they make sense, what I like to call transferable skills. TQM is another area where the martial student can draw some good info/methods for tracking improvement.

I've told many people that a 5 paragraph (ops order) order from my days as a grunt in the Corps is project mgmt in action. Different words to describe the same thought process but definitely the same.

I'll try to sum it up so far.

A handful of flexable techniques based upon solid principles is better than niche techniques.

We should find a "drawer" for each of our techniques before commiting to them. Put them in context and then think of applications, e.g. catagorize them.

The 80/20 rule is in play here.

What we haven't touched on is likely situations. Logicaly that's the the first step in the process, well before "what should I be working on?" Once I have a handle on "likely situations" then I have a good idea of what I should be working on in practice. After all that's the entire point of TF isn't it?

So with that in mind does anyone have a good idea where we can get some apolitical stats?

I'm thinking of looking up John Lott the "More Guns Less Crime" author to see if he has some good stats or is working on publishing a book for us CCW types.

[David Williams]

I've told many people that a 5 paragraph (ops order) order from my days as a grunt in the Corps is project mgmt in action. Different words to describe the same thought process but definitely the same.

That's funny. I actually use it for test plans and some project plans!! :cool:

[kilogulf59]

Low Drag -
You're definitely on the right track. You're staring right into the face of the 80/20 rule (which is the law of the land in the corporate world), which theorizes that in any endeavor 80% of the goal can be acheived through 20% of the effort, and that 20% of the goal will require the remaining 80% of the effort.

We use this every day in business planning. In every decision we are programmed to determine priorities and order of magnitude. If a certain goal will require 80% of the project effort but only produce 20% of the desired outcome, then you may not want to attack those points right off, but rather save them for further down the road. Worst case scenario, it is much better to near the end of your project 80% complete than only 20%.

Same goes for SD training - why should we allocate valuable training resources (time/money) to train for improbable scenarios, especially SPECIFIC scenarios? Would our effort not be better spent learning/practicing a few highly versatile skills that increase our abilities to respond across a wider range of possible situations and save the specialized training for later?

Bloody lot of good being smokin' fast on a tactical reload does you if you never get to respond to the threat in the first place.

I like it - keep it coming! ;)


What we haven't touched on is likely situations. Logicaly that's the the first step in the process, well before "what should I be working on?" Once I have a handle on "likely situations" then I have a good idea of what I should be working on in practice. After all that's the entire point of TF isn't it?

Dave,

You are correct; though the 80/20 rule is very true it was recognized long before the moniker was applied to it. Examine the traditional martial arts structure or athletic competitors training goals, as two illustrations.

To me, the oft-overlooked aspect of this rule is, generally the answers to the final 20% lie in the knowledge and labors of the first 80%, as you underscore in your third paragraph.

The beauty of we Americans was, until the last several decades or so; we learned to apply simple solutions to complex problems. Currently there seems a tendency to reverse that process i.e. complex solutions to simple problems. I believe this is what happened to the development of combat shooting theory and practice.

LD,

If I am getting your gist, it appears you advocating scenario-based training. This, to an extent is excellent. However, I also consider that, with the multitude of would-be situations and their sub-variants, one can become mired in possibilities.

I believe what I am trying to convey is, balanced training, and techniques with gross emphasis on simplicity and economy. Master this and let the subconscious apply it as necessary.

Odd that this dialogue is occurring as I am in process of compiling my notes (as a pet project and mainly for my family should they be interested) and this subject matter is a major part of my personal doctrine.

Gentlemen, I am no professional, nevertheless I have put a bit of thought into this subject and what I state in not “gospel”, nor is it intended to be, simply my hypothesis of the issue.